It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

page: 24
9
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Science has become a lot more accurate when it comes to measurements.
Science is still a competing business, and that means everything goes as long as it brings in the dollars.
They to are cought lying as well.




posted on May, 23 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Want to know how I know creationism is what's up?

Evolution.

It is not random, and look into it because you could totally prove that to me. Conscious structuring and limitations.

Thank you.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myollinir
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Want to know how I know creationism is what's up?

Evolution.

It is not random, and look into it because you could totally prove that to me. Conscious structuring and limitations.

Thank you.


This brings up the question why Evolution didn't just make all animals beings of pure energy, or something.

More realistically, why are gorillas and chimps so primitive when humans are so advanced? Seems kind of weird for some to evolve and others not.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Cuppy
 



Originally posted by Cuppy
This brings up the question why Evolution didn't just make all animals beings of pure energy, or something.


Mainly because the whole 'energy being' thing, while a really cool concept for sci-fi and fantasy, makes absolutely no sense from a physics point of view.



More realistically, why are gorillas and chimps so primitive when humans are so advanced?


Advanced is a relative term. We're smarter, sure. But are we stronger than a gorilla? Are we as nimble as a chimp? They adapted differently. Different survival strategy.



Seems kind of weird for some to evolve and others not.


They all evolve. We just evolve differently. We are pretty smart, but we don't have the best senses in the animal kingdom. Our eyes are entirely inadequate when you compare them to those of certain octopuses.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Myollinir
 



Originally posted by Myollinir
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Want to know how I know creationism is what's up?

Evolution.


...um...what?



It is not random, and look into it because you could totally prove that to me.


Evolution works as the non-random selection of random mutations via natural and sexual selection.



Conscious structuring and limitations.


Huh?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Just because things adapt, change, and or evolve, it doesnt mean that is how they came into existence. It would be absolutely idiotic for science to assume that. Take ATS for example... ATS was created, and after it was created it evolved into what we see now. New members who did not witness its creation can only see it evolving, changing... that is basically the state science is in regarding life on earth. Science can only see things evolving, and did not witness the creation of those things. So naturally , erroniously, scientists think life evolved and was not created. The reality is, everything that exists was created, and everything that exists evolves.



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
Just because things adapt, change, and or evolve, it doesnt mean that is how they came into existence. It would be absolutely idiotic for science to assume that.


First off stop using inorganic objects to argue against the theory of evolution. It shows complete ignorants to the subject.

The part I quoted is equally as silly. Science does not just assume common decent is true because of Evolution.

What makes Evolution the "Theory" great is we can use it to make prediction. One of those predictions was life on Earth all has a common ancestor. Guess what ? It has been test over and over again. Not one time has it failed.

en.wikipedia.org...

We see it in the fossil record, we see it in distribution on species (it fits with plate tectonics), and maybe most importantly we see it in genetics. It is absolutely idiotic to try to argue against it.

Not trying to be mean, it really is. You have obviously not even took the time to study the subject for 10 minutes before calling one of its pilers "idiotic".

Name one living thing on Earth that you feel does not fit into common descent with ... Humans.
Keep in mind have mapped cabbage's genome and we share about 50% of their DNA.

If your just going to come back with same "designer same design" Google it and debunk it yourself, I will not even acknowledge a argument that has been dead the last 10 years.
edit on 23-5-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
Just because things adapt, change, and or evolve, it doesnt mean that is how they came into existence. It would be absolutely idiotic for science to assume that.


And that's why they don't. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, it has to do with the diversification of life. Scientists have an entire different field devoted to life arising from non-life called abiogenesis.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by LikeDuhObviously
First off stop using inorganic objects to argue against the theory of evolution. It shows complete ignorants to the subject.


Sorry, but some day you will realize that even inorganic objects evolve (including ATS, and even elements of matter), and my analogy was solid for every object in existence. Before you call someone ignorant, please remove your own ignorance first.

So, I will repeat what I said using an organic object, and you will see the similarities of my analogy.

If tomorrow I created life in a laboratory from scratch it would more than likely evolve over time just like everything else in existence. Years from tomorrow, if someone studied the life form I created and didn't know how it came into existence, it might appear to them that the life form evolved into existence and was not created by me. Do you understand now?



Originally posted by LikeDuhObviously
The part I quoted is equally as silly. Science does not just assume common decent is true because of Evolution.

What makes Evolution the "Theory" great is we can use it to make prediction. One of those predictions was life on Earth all has a common ancestor. Guess what ? It has been test over and over again. Not one time has it failed.

en.wikipedia.org...

We see it in the fossil record, we see it in distribution on species (it fits with plate tectonics), and maybe most importantly we see it in genetics. It is absolutely idiotic to try to argue against it.

Not trying to be mean, it really is. You have obviously not even took the time to study the subject for 10 minutes before calling one of its pilers "idiotic".


You obviously didn't understand the deeper meaning of my reply and it went right over your head.

I suggest you reread the very last sentence of my last post multiple times, then contemplate the numerous reasons one would say such a thing in such a way.

I am not arguing about common decent. Nor did I call any "pilers" idiotic. Also, your assumption that I have not studied this subject is just pure ignorance and prejudice...

What I claimed was idiotic (which it is) is to assume that, since we observe things evolve, and we can predict how they evolve, and we have evidence that they evolved, that those things evolved into existence and was not created.....


Originally posted by LikeDuhObviously
If your just going to come back with same "designer same design" Google it and debunk it yourself, I will not even acknowledge a argument that has been dead the last 10 years.


Sorry but your prejudice and your assumptions just made you look foolish. You erroneously assumed my position based on your inability to comprehend complex philosophy, and your ATTACK was jumpy and reactionary and without forethought. I sense you have a lot of emotion in this debate. For your information, I don't have traditional beliefs, or at least, I am not like the other people you have attacked on your mission.

Let me ask... What do you think evolution is? Do you think it is just "a process"? "Automatic" or "uncontrolled"? Do you think it is just a series of mathematical inevitabilities, or a chain reaction? Do you downplay the entire process as "nothingness doing something"? Without purpose or reason? Do you see it as a force? Please do answer this if you can...

I see the Universe as ONE object. This object has many parts, however, all parts are made of the same building blocks, and those building blocks all evolved from the One single source.

All things within this object (all matter, life, etc.), since they are all made of the same primal substance(s), all have a similar path. A predictable path... as predictable as the branches of a lighting strike. Like electrons trying every path of least resistance until it reaches it's destination; equilibrium.

Many of you only concentrate on the parts of the whole. You divide the parts, and study the evolution (path) of each part. However, I concentrate on the whole. The entire universe as a whole is evolving. Every part of it. You can study every part of it, and you can say that all those parts evolved, or are evolving on their own independently. Or you can study the whole, and see the whole is evolving....

So let me ask you.... Did the universe just come into existence? Or was it created? You will never know in your life time, and neither will any scientist. You will only witness the evolution, and can never witness the creation.

To answer the question if life was created or just evolved, you have to answer the question of how the entire Universe came into existence, because the entire universe is One object.

I am of the belief that a force which is unexplainable and without definition, boundless and not of this realm was responsible for the creation of this Universe. That single force was responsible for the creation of all things.... The method of creation is evolution.

Evolution is creation in action.

You might see evolution as "nothingness doing something"... but I see that "something" as an ingenious, graceful, perfect example of how One would create the universe.

edit on 24-5-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
Just because things adapt, change, and or evolve, it doesnt mean that is how they came into existence. It would be absolutely idiotic for science to assume that.


And that's why they don't. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, it has to do with the diversification of life. Scientists have an entire different field devoted to life arising from non-life called abiogenesis.


Abiogenesis is just another form of evolution. However, instead of the evolution of life-to-life, it is matter-to-life.

Until you can disprove or prove the process of formation of the entire Universe as a whole... then you have not even come close to defeating creationist. For all you know, the entire formation of the Universe could have been gracefully designed. The evolution of Ape to Man could have been planned, and the entire process of evolution could actually be the chosen process of creation.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 





If tomorrow I created life in a laboratory from scratch,




This is never ever going to happen.

Mad
Science can't even put the human body together. Let alone bring the life force
( the soul ) to it. Just exactly the same way it would never happen by accident ( primordial soup ). Life was created. Speculate all you want about the rest. But there isn't any other explanation. The intelligence a few of us
possess and the life force that animates us, was created. No one can ever come close to making me think any
thing different. To suggest that intelligence just rose up out of nowhere one day is loony. Sorry but it is. I'll take
common sense over evidence all day long.

The amount of time for life to get going via evoluci'on would be somewhere near infinite. Now you take a billion years. Compare that to infinity. Suddenly one billion yrs looks like a day. Ok a week then.

I claim another victory for Christ.

Defeat ? I think you stubbed your toe.
edit on 24-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Question for you . No not a trick question. Just a yes or no.

Does darkness exist ?



edit on 24-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
To suggest that intelligence just rose up out of nowhere one day is loony. Sorry but it is.

No, it's far more plausible that some bearded nutter clicked his fingers to create the world before sending down his Zombie Lord son to save us, whereupon we can feast on our Zombie Lord's flesh and quaff his blood every Sunday. That DEFINITELY makes a lot more sense. Praise the Lord!


I'll take common sense over evidence all day long.




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
No, it's far more plausible that some bearded nutter clicked his fingers to create the world before sending down his Zombie Lord son to save us, whereupon we can feast on our Zombie Lord's flesh and quaff his blood every Sunday. That DEFINITELY makes a lot more sense. Praise the Lord!


Wow. That's an awesome thing to do. Get your facts straight before posting on the subject.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


So let me get this straight...

You believe that the entire universe just appeared out of thin air (figure of speech), from absolute nothingness for no reason at all?

You believe in magic, but not a magician....
You believe absolute nothingness can pull a non-existent rabbit out of a hat made of nothingness....


That goes against the first law of motion! An object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force. You have "nothingness" or a "void" that is at rest, then suddenly you have a Big Bang (motion). So what was that outside force and where did it come from? Or are you going to go against your religion...erh... I mean science and say that Newtons first law doesn't apply?
edit on 24-5-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 





If tomorrow I created life in a laboratory from scratch,




This is never ever going to happen.

Mad
Science can't even put the human body together. Let alone bring the life force
( the soul ) to it. Just exactly the same way it would never happen by accident ( primordial soup ). Life was created. Speculate all you want about the rest. But there isn't any other explanation. The intelligence a few of us
possess and the life force that animates us, was created. No one can ever come close to making me think any
thing different. To suggest that intelligence just rose up out of nowhere one day is loony. Sorry but it is. I'll take
common sense over evidence all day long.

The amount of time for life to get going via evoluci'on would be somewhere near infinite. Now you take a billion years. Compare that to infinity. Suddenly one billion yrs looks like a day. Ok a week then.

I claim another victory for Christ.

I claim another victory for science.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


Do you believe the Zombie Lord's dad (Pappa Zombie Lord) instead created the universe?



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
The Phylum that humans are in also contains buzzards, catfish, and even hippos. Still there are no fossil records or any ties that can show an intermediate state or a common state between a buzzard and a catfish. The differences between other phyla are even more extreme. There is no macro evolution, only mico changes within a species.

Sudden appearance and stasis. That is the essence of the fossil record that we have. These creatures appear, and they stay basically the same.The only natural selection is in the selection of fossils that scientist place side by side to try to prove this philosophy called evolution.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Let me say it again. YOU CAN SPECULATE ALL YOU WANT TO ABOUT THE REST. Life was created.

Thain



If tomorrow I created life in a laboratory from scratch


Is that link claiming it created life from scratch ? Or is describing how it uses synthetics and a host ? No where near creating life from scratch. Total fail. Not even a nice try.
edit on 24-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
The Phylum that humans are in also contains buzzards, catfish, and even hippos. Still there are no fossil records or any ties that can show an intermediate state or a common state between a buzzard and a catfish. The differences between other phyla are even more extreme. There is no macro evolution, only mico changes within a species.

Sudden appearance and stasis. That is the essence of the fossil record that we have. These creatures appear, and they stay basically the same.The only natural selection is in the selection of fossils that scientist place side by side to try to prove this philosophy called evolution.


Wow. Best way to put it I've seen yet.

No argument has been put forth to explain why these creatures have not changed in any way except for passing of small bits of knowledge, such as chimpanzees making spears. Any one want to shed some light on this?
edit on 24-5-2011 by Cuppy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
The Phylum that humans are in also contains buzzards, catfish, and even hippos. Still there are no fossil records or any ties that can show an intermediate state or a common state between a buzzard and a catfish. The differences between other phyla are even more extreme. There is no macro evolution, only mico changes within a species.

Sudden appearance and stasis. That is the essence of the fossil record that we have. These creatures appear, and they stay basically the same.The only natural selection is in the selection of fossils that scientist place side by side to try to prove this philosophy called evolution.

What you are essentially saying is that if you and I are distant cousins, we must have somehow given birth to each other in order for us to be related? Cousins are not direct descendants of each other, that is why they are cousins, not parents/children. They are related, albeit on different branches of the family tree. That is why you will not find your farcical buzzard/catfish transitional fossil.
edit on 24-5-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join